Home Office circular 45 / 2005

Testing Police Officers and Police Recruits for Substance Misuse

Dear Chief Officer,

This circular provides guidance on testing police recruits and police officers for substance misuse.

2. The Home Secretary has approved a recommendation made by the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales that a national policy be introduced for testing police officers and police recruits for substance misuse. The testing policy is rigorously targeted and focused on areas of particular risk. It does not imply any lack of trust in the professionalism of the police. Regulations will come into force on 7th November 2005 providing a clear legal framework for operation of the policy.

Requirement for police recruits and police officers to undertake tests for substance misuse

3. The Regulations introduce a power to test for controlled drugs:

• Candidates for appointment to police forces (other than on direct transfer between forces)
• Serving officers who give cause to suspect that a controlled drug has been used
• Police probationers
• Officers whose work puts them in a vulnerable position because of a specific responsibility for dealing with drugs
• Officers in safety critical posts as determined by the Secretary of State. This includes firearms officers and their supervisors; officers authorised to use the police exemption under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; members or supervisors of Police Search Advisor teams and police divers.

4. The Regulations provide that officers will be required to give a sample of saliva or urine to be tested in accordance with procedures determined by the Secretary of State. The Regulations also introduce a power to test officers in safety critical posts for alcohol. A copy of the Regulations is enclosed.

5. The testing procedures and the controlled drugs which testing will cover have been determined by the Secretary of State. The controlled drugs are amphetamines (including ecstasy); cannabis; cocaine; opiates; and benzodiazepines. A copy of the Determination is attached at ‘A’.

6. The Police Advisory Board for England & Wales recommended that testing for substance misuse would be on the basis of the protocols attached at Annex B. The protocols have been agreed by the Secretary of State.

7. If you have any queries about this Circular, please contact Isobel Rowlands on 020 7035 1890 or email at Isobel.rowlands@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk.

Police Human Resources Unit
3 November 2005

Annex A

The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by regulations 10(1)(i) and 19A of the Police Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/527), and after having complied with the requirements of regulation 46, has determined that, with effect from 7th November 2005, there shall be inserted as Annex DD of the Determinations under the Police Regulations 2003 the following Annex:

Annex DD Regulations 10 and 19A

Testing for substance misuse

1. For the purposes of regulation 19A(1)(d), the descriptions of members of police forces who may be required to give a sample of saliva, urine or breath are as follows:

Safety critical posts

(i) Firearms officers authorised to use firearms or directly supervising such officers
(ii) Drivers authorised by their Chief Officer to use the police exemption under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and holding posts in which they may be called upon to use that exemption
(iii) Members or supervisors of Police Search Advisor (POLSA) teams
(iv) Police divers.

2. For the purposes of regulations 10(1)(i) and 19A(3)(a), the controlled drugs which testing shall cover are:

• Amphetamines (including ecstasy)
• Cannabis
• Cocaine
• Opiates (e.g. morphine and heroin)
• Benzodiazepines

Testing procedures

3. For the purposes of regulations 10(1)(i) and 19A(1), the following procedures shall apply in relation to testing for controlled drugs.

4. Testing shall be carried out without advance notice.

5. On-site testing using portable testing kits may be used to screen out members of police forces and candidates for appointment at an early stage of these procedures. Any test that is relied upon in criminal or disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted through laboratory analysis.

6. Collection of samples and initial on-site screening may be undertaken by an independent agency or by suitably trained police staff. There shall be a secure chain of custody through collection, analysis and medical review as set out in protocols issued by the Secretary of State. Laboratory analysis shall be undertaken by an independent agency.

7. Split samples shall be used in all cases that go forward to laboratory analysis. A member of a police force shall have the right to have one sample tested independently to challenge the result of a test on the other sample.

8. The following procedures shall apply in relation to testing for alcohol. Testing for alcohol shall be carried out without advance notice and using breath testing equipment capable of taking measurements at the 13 microgrammes percentage level.

Consequences of testing positive

9. Positive results may be referred to Professional Standards Departments for action. This may lead to criminal action or formal disciplinary proceedings or both.

Home Office
Minister of State 2005

Annex B

Substance Misuse Testing: Protocols for Testing Procedures

Introduction

1. These protocols are promulgated by the Home Office, on the advice of the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales, pursuant to Police Regulations 10 and 19 and associated Determination.

Part 1: Controlled drugs

Scope of Testing

2. The extent of testing by any force should be proportionate to the problem. A testing regime should not be of a scale that implies a lack of trust in the professionalism of the police, or of a nature that might undermine the existing sense of responsibility to alert senior officers to signs that a colleague might have a substance misuse problem.

3. Testing may be carried out in the following circumstances:

• Testing with cause (that is, where there is a reasonable suspicion of substance misuse)
• Pre-employment screening and testing in the probationary period
• Screening in specialist and safety critical areas.

4. The intention of a testing regime should be preventive. Testing regimes should be designed to:

• Minimise the chances of substance misusers entering the police service in the first plac.
• Deter officers from substance misuse through the application of a policy that makes detection a real possibility.
• Encourage those with a substance misuse problem to identify themselves, so that they may be supported in seeking treatment.
• Screen officers in safety critical areas, so as to minimise any risk of operations being prejudiced by impaired judgement
• Protect officers in posts in which they may be vulnerable to malicious allegations of substance misuse.

5. Forces should have due regard to protect privacy during the testing procedures and ensure that testing is conducted in a sensitive manner. Forces should also ensure that test results are handled in a secure and confidential manner. Records of test results should be retained in accordance with Data Protection principles.

6. Forces have the power to test officers if they have cause to suspect that an officer is misusing controlled drugs. The requirement to take a test should be imposed by an officer of an appropriate senior rank. For “cause” to be established, the test of “reasonable suspicion” must be satisfied. It should be made clear to the officer that testing “with cause” may either prove or disprove intelligence or allegations made. A single and unsubstantiated allegation, particularly if made by a member of the public who may have malicious intent, would not normally amount to cause. It is good practice to record in writing the reasons for suspecting an officer has misused controlled drugs.

7. Officers (of all ranks) working in the following fields should be liable to be tested:

Safety critical posts

• Firearms officers. All officers authorised to use firearms, or directly supervising such officers
• Drivers and motorcyclists who have received the appropriate training from their force to use the police exemptions under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. All officers who have received the appropriate training from their force to use the police exemptions under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and holding posts in which they may be called upon to use those exemptions
• POLSA teams. All officers who are members or supervisors of Police Search Advisor teams.
  

Health and Safety

• Police divers

Vulnerable posts

8. In the nature of their duties, many police officers, and particularly those working under cover, will have close associations with criminals. Those whose duties bring them into contact with drugs dealers are particularly vulnerable to malicious allegations that they are themselves drug users. A liability for such officers to be tested enables it to be demonstrated that they remain “clean”.

9. In some forces it is possible to define the posts concerned – for example drugs squad officers and test purchase officers. However, not all forces have single function crime squads, so it is necessary to define vulnerable posts on a force by force basis. As such, the posts to which the liability to be tested attaches are:

• Posts identified by the Chief Officer within each force as being vulnerable because of a specific responsibility for dealing with drugs.

Substances tested for

10. Testing covers the illicit use of the following substances:

• Amphetamines (including ecstasy)
• Cannabis
• Cocaine
• Opiates (e.g. morphine and heroin)
• Benzodiazepines

11. There may be legitimate reasons for a drug being present in a specimen. For example, the presence of morphine may indicate heroin abuse, or the use of a legitimate medicine (e.g. a painkiller or an anti-diarrhoea preparation). Officers required to take a test should declare all medications they are taking. The content of such declarations is confidential to the occupational health service of the force, and to the medical officer reviewing the result of a test.

Procedures

Recruits and serving officers

12. There are some differences that may apply to the procedures used for testing potential recruits and serving officers. If a potential recruit does not wish to submit to a test, he or she may withdraw from the recruitment process. An officer is obliged to submit to a test, if so required, and may, as a consequence, have to declare information about medications that he or she is taking. These declarations may have the effect of disclosing personal information that the officer is entitled to expect will be treated in confidence by Occupational Health. By contrast, all aspects of the collection and on-site screening of samples from potential recruits, including the taking of information about medications, may be undertaken as a part of the human resources function.

Conducting the test

13. There must be a secure chain of custody through collection, analysis and medical review. Laboratory analysis should be undertaken by an independent agency. Collection of samples, and initial on-site screening, may be undertaken by an independent agency, or by suitably qualified staff of the force.

14. For the purpose of the physical administration of the test, the suitably qualified person may be a member of the staff of the independent agency, a trained officer or member of staff of the force, or a member of the occupational health service of the force. Where completion of the paperwork by an officer involves disclosure of medication being taken, that paperwork should be seen only by occupational health staff. It follows that where the paperwork is not completed by the officer personally (i.e. it is completed in response to questions put to the officer, and then signed by the officer), that task should be undertaken by occupational health staff only. It is important that information about medications taken prior to the test is recorded at the time of specimen collection, and not at any later stage.

On-site screening and laboratory testing

15. Any test that may be relied upon in disciplinary proceedings should be conducted through laboratory analysis, not on-site testing. On-site testing, using portable testing kits, may be used to screen out persons tested. However, if there is a positive indication at any screening stage, the residual specimen of urine or saliva (remaining after the screening test) should go forward to full laboratory analysis and medical review. Where testing is carried out with cause, the specimen may be submitted directly to the laboratory, without conducting a screening test. The cost of an independent analysis will be met by the member and may be reimbursed by the Force in the event that the first analysis is found to be inaccurate.

Split samples

16. Provision should always be made to allow the donor of the urine or saliva an opportunity to have an independent analysis of the specimen to challenge the outcome of a laboratory analysis. A split sample (at the time of collection) provides an effective means of providing this opportunity.

Material to be tested

17. Either saliva or urine may be tested. Saliva testing may be regarded as the least personally intrusive option. The testing of blood samples should not form a part of routine testing, where there is no necessary ground for suspecting misuse, as the procedures are disproportionately intrusive.

Testing procedures

Self declarationan

18. Officers with substance misuse problems should be encouraged to identify themselves, and should be assisted in seeking treatment. However, self-declaration cannot be used to avoid the consequences of a positive test. Any such declaration must be made before an officer is notified of any requirement to take a test. A self-declaration made after an officer is notified of the requirement to take a test cannot be used to frustrate the disciplinary proceedings that might result from a positive test result.

Safety critical posts

19. The scale of testing should be risk based. Where the numbers involved are relatively small, forces may wish, in the first instance, to test all officers in this category. If the assessment of risk is low, then any sample of officers selected for testing should be random.

20. Scale of testing should be determined at force level, having regard to perceived risk and cost. “Scale” encompasses size of sample and frequency of testing. If initial testing produces a nil or low number of positive results, then the scale of testing need not be large. On the other hand, a higher proportion of positive results would indicate a larger scale of future testing. “Risk” encompasses the risk inherent in the consequences of impairment of judgement or performance, and the risk of incidence of misuse. In safety critical posts the former risk will usually be high, even if the latter risk is low.

Vulnerable posts

21. Testing should be routine. If a high degree of risk is assessed, universal testing covering all officers in the vulnerable category might be appropriate. If the assessment of risk is low, then a sample of officers to be tested should be selected at random. For the avoidance of doubt, the liability to be tested applies to vulnerable posts in national agencies (currently NCIS and NCS, in future SOCA) as well as to posts in local forces.

Consultation and monitoring

22. The scale of testing adopted, and the identification of vulnerable posts, should be the subject of consultation with the local staff associations. All random samples should be monitored by ethnicity, faith, gender, disability and sexual orientation to ensure that no unintended bias arises from the sampling technique.

Immediate consequences of positive test results on serving police officers at the on-site screening stage

23. On-site drug screening tests should be carried out only by a suitably qualified person. The person being tested should be advised that any positive screening test results provide a provisional indication only, and are subject to further laboratory analysis and medical review, either of which could result in the final result being negative.

24. An officer’s manager should be informed immediately of a positive on-site screening test result, as there may be a risk in continuing to deploy the officer on the full range of police duties. At this stage there is no final result, as this can only be provided by laboratory analysis, so the language used to describe the outcome of an on-site test is very important. In particular, the manager should not be told that “a test has been failed” as this is not the case.

25. It is for the manager to assess the risk in relation to the duties due to be undertaken by the officer, but there would be a presumption of removal from duties involving contact with the public. Formal suspension would be appropriate only if a positive result was confirmed following laboratory test and medical review.

26. Difficulties arise, inevitably, for both the officer and management from a positive result at the screening stage. A confirmed result, either positive or negative, will not be available until the completion of laboratory analysis and medical review, a process that is likely to take two or three days. However, any difficulties arising from this delay are outweighed by the benefit that screening enables there to be an instant confirmation of a negative result.

Handling confirmed positive results

27. A positive laboratory analysis will be subject to medical review, as explained more fully in the Annex. Medical review involves a medical practitioner reviewing the test result and the medical history of the individual to determine if there is a legitimate explanation for the presence of a drug in the sample.

28. Test results following laboratory analysis and medical review should be returned to the occupational health service of the force concerned. Where the result is negative the officer and his or her manager should be informed without delay. It is particularly important that a confirmed negative result after an initial on-site positive screening result is communicated to the officer and management without delay.

29. A positive result from a test administered as a part of the pre-employment process should be notified to human resources, so that the candidate may be rejected.

30. A positive result from a person who had self-declared a substance misuse problem prior to being tested should be reviewed by occupational health to assess whether the result was consistent with rehabilitation treatment being undertaken. If the result suggested that an agreed programme of rehabilitation was not being followed, then reference to professional standards should be considered.

31. All other positive results should be referred to professional standards for action. It is for professional standards to notify both the officer and the line manager of the result, and of any immediate action, including suspension from duty where appropriate.

32. Any claim by the officer or probationer concerned that there was a reason (other than a medical reason) for the positive result should be referred to professional standards and disciplinary action may follow.. Such claims would include any claim that a positive test was a result of the officer having consumed unknowingly a “spiked” drink.

Liability

33. An officer who has misused controlled drugs suffers a double jeopardy. He or she is at risk of disciplinary proceedings that might lead to dismissal, and may also be at risk of criminal prosecution. Because of this double jeopardy, and whether or not criminal proceedings are contemplated, cautioning and interviewing should be to the standards required under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE).

34. The penalty for refusal to take a test is no less than the penalty for failing a test. The liability to take a test is established in Police Regulations, thus a failure to take a test when required to do so is a failure to obey a lawful order. There is no substantive criminal offence of having an unlawful substance in the body, only a presumption that the offence of “possession” must have been committed beforehand. Such a presumption may be rebuttable by medical evidence that the positive test resulted from use of a lawful medication. The presumption of possession that would arise from a positive, medically confirmed test result should be treated as discreditable conduct. The maximum penalty for both failure to obey a lawful order and discreditable conduct is the same.

Occupational Health Support

35. The introduction of testing must be accompanied by a commitment, from the occupational health service for each force, to provide support to any officers who may approach them to declare, in confidence, a substance misuse problem.

36. There are, however, some circumstances in which the interests of the proper administration of justice may over-ride an absolute confidentiality. In particular, the Joint Operating Instructions (JOPI) agreed between ACPO and the Crown Prosecution Service place on the individual officer a personal responsibility to declare any matter that may affect their credibility as a witness in a court case. In some circumstances substance misuse on the part of an officer acting as a witness may have to be revealed to the Crown Prosecution Service, as the damage to the credibility of the officer as a witness may be a factor to be considered in a decision whether to proceed with a prosecution.

37. The personal responsibility under JOPI should be drawn to the attention of an officer, by the Occupational Health Service, at the time at which any self-declaration of a substance misuse problem is made. The need to make a declaration to CPS will not arise in every case; each should be considered on its own facts and merits. Any declaration to CPS should be properly managed, with appropriate support provided to the officer.

Part 2: alcohol

38. Alcohol is a substance that can be misused, and which can impair judgement. However, it is in a different category from controlled drugs, in that its use is not illegal. Some misuse of alcohol can be an offence. An officer who is drunk and disorderly in a public place commits an offence. An officer who attempts to drive a vehicle whilst over the prescribed limit commits an offence.

39. Officers have a general responsibility to present themselves fit for duty. If their judgement is impaired by the consumption of alcohol, they are unlikely to be fit for duty. It is for a senior officer to determine whether an officer is unfit for general duties, due to consumption of alcohol. However, reporting for duty whilst having previously consumed alcohol (for example, on the previous evening) does not equate with the criminal offence of using drugs. Managerial action needs to reflect this.

40. As with drugs, self-declaration of a drink problem is a matter that should be managed through the occupational health service, rather than being regarded as a disciplinary matter.

41. In respect of the safety critical posts defined above for drug testing, and in these areas only, there is a power to conduct tests with cause, if it appears that an officer is under the influence of alcohol. Officers working in these areas should be liable also to random testing should risk of impairment appear to warrant this, on a scale to be agreed with the local staff side.

42. There is a presumption that a person is unfit to work in a safety critical area (as defined in paragraph 6 above) if they have more than 29 mg% in blood (39 mg% in urine, 13 micrograms% in breath). This compares with a limit of 80 mg% in blood for driving.

43. Where testing is carried out, it should be conducted using breath testing equipment capable of making measurements at the 13 micrograms% level (equivalent to the 29 mg% blood level). Officers should never be tested on apparatus held in a custody suite, unless the suite is cleared of all other users.

44. Each “breath test” should consist of two consecutive breath specimen tests from the officer, with the final result being declared as the lower of the two results. 45. If a supervising officer smells alcohol on the breath of an officer liable to alcohol testing, a breath alcohol test can be administered after a wait of 15 minutes. (This is to deal with the eventuality that at the time the suspicion of excess drinking is aroused, a proportion of the alcohol consumed may still be in the officer’s stomach. Alcohol must be absorbed into the body to register in a breath alcohol test.)

46. It should always be open to an officer to declare that they suspect they might have inadvertently exceeded the limit. Any such declaration should be made before the officer is notified of any requirement to take a test. Such declarations should not result in the officer being penalised, provided there is no pattern of continuing excess. A declaration may be particularly appropriate in circumstances of an unexpected change of duty, for example being allocated to driving duties involving possible use of the police exemptions under the Road Traffic Act, due to a staff shortage.

Annex B

Guidance on and overview of procedures

Overview of Drug Testing Procedures

1. The outcome of a drug test is expressed as “Positive” or “Negative”.

2. The purpose of drug testing is to establish whether the donor of the specimen has consumed a controlled drug at some time prior to the collection of the specimen. The identification of a drug in a specimen is not the complete picture as there may be legitimate reasons for the drug being present.

3. For example, the presence of morphine in a urine specimen may indicate that the donor is a heroin misuser (heroin is converted to morphine in the human body) but equally it may indicate only that the donor had legitimately taken an anti-diarrhoea preparation which contained morphine as its active ingredient.

4. Drug testing involves three integrated stages; collection, analysis and medical review.

5. All final drug positive test results should arise from analysis conducted in an accredited laboratory. On-site screening tests may be used to screen out negative results, but a positive indication at the screening stage must go forward to full laboratory analysis and medical review.

6. The first stage of the drug testing procedure is the collection of the specimen. The collection of a specimen from a donor is straightforward, but it must be conducted in such a way as to maintain the Chain-of-Custody of the specimen, with full documentation at all stages. The collector must be properly trained, with the standards applying being those that would apply to any other procedure in which it is important to maintain the integrity of an exhibit.

7. Analysis is the process of seeking to detect drugs in the collected specimen. If no drugs are found in the specimen, the drug testing procedure is complete at that stage, and the force will be advised of the "Negative” outcome.

8. If the analysis identifies one or more drugs in the specimen, further work is required. The positive analytical results need to be interpreted in the light of any factors that may provide a legitimate explanation for the presence of the drugs (e.g. medications taken by the specimen donor in the days before the test). This process is referred to as “Medical Review” and is conducted by a medical practitioner (the “Medical Review Officer”), in case there is a need for a medical discussion with the donor. The medical practitioner reviews the evidence and arrives at an opinion as to the origins of the drugs identified. If their presence can be explained by the use of prescribed or proprietary medication the force will be advised of a "Negative” outcome.

9. If the presence of drugs in the specimen cannot be accounted for in this way, the force will be advised of a "Positive” outcome. The “Positive” outcome reported will include the details of the drug(s) identified. In any case where there is any doubt, the overriding principle of the medical review process is to give the benefit of that doubt to the specimen donor.

10. In summary, the outcome of a comprehensive drug testing procedure involves three integrated stages: collection, analysis and medical review. A “Negative” result for a specimen indicates that no illicit drug use has been identified. A “Positive” result indicates that there is evidence of illicit drug use that cannot be explained by any of the legitimate medications used by the donorChain-of-Custody Collection11.

The general principles of Chain-of-Custody collection can be summarised as follows:

• to ensure that the donor understands the procedure.
• to document medications taken by the donor.
• to maintain the chain-of-custody.
• to avoid cheating by the donor (specimen dilution, adulteration, substitution etc).
• to allow the donor to provide a specimen in appropriate circumstances (e.g. privacy for urine collection).
• to adopt procedures that allow the donor to have access to the specimen for independent analysis (e.g. splitting the specimen).
• to allow the donor to observe the whole procedure by which the specimen is packaged ready for transport to the laboratory.
• to ensure that the specimen is untouched at any stage, thereby avoiding contamination.
• to ensure that the specimen is sent to the laboratory in tamper-evident packaging.

12. The collection process is facilitated by the use of a special Chain-of-Custody collection kit. The documentation is usually provided by a multi-part, duplicating Chain-of -Custody form. The documentation is completed by, or in the presence of the donor, who will sign to confirm that the urine or saliva specimen is theirs. The sample will be sealed in the presence of the donor. Any information provided about medication will be confidential to the testing laboratory, a medical review officer, and the occupational health service.

13. The urine testing kit usually contains two containers and, after collection, the specimen is divided between the two and these are both labelled and sealed with tamper evident security seals in preparation for dispatch to the laboratory for analysis. Both specimen containers remain together. One container, the “A” sample, is used at the laboratory for drug analysis whilst the second is stored at the laboratory under secure conditions, on behalf of the donor, as a back up in case he/she wishes to challenge a positive laboratory result. The donor has the right to challenge the results of a drug test using the second part of the split specimen. In the case of a challenge, the sealed “B” sample will be sent to an independent accredited laboratory of the donor’s choice. The donor is required to meet the cost of the transfer and subsequent analysis, but these costs will be reimbursed in the event that the test on the “B” sample is negative.

14. The top copy of the Chain-of-Custody form is forwarded with the specimen to the analysis laboratory while copies of the form go to the donor, the collector and to the responsible manager in the Force. A further copy of the form, bearing the details of recent medications goes to the Medical Review Officer.

15. The general principles of Chain-of-Custody saliva and urine collection are the same. The major difference is that a saliva specimen does not have to be provided in privacy which reduces the measures that need to be adopted to minimise the risk of “cheating”. A further difference is that the small volume of the sample means that specimens are not always split, so an alternative approach may be taken to providing the donor with an opportunity to have an independent specimen analysis.

Principles of Laboratory Drug Analysis

Sample reception

16. On arrival at the laboratory the specimens and their packaging are examined to check that the security seals on the containers are intact, and that there are no other signs of tampering. Further checks establish that the Chain-of-Custody paperwork has been fully completed. Once these sample integrity checks have been done, one of the specimens (the “A” sample) is opened ready for analysis.DRUG ANALYSIS

17. The analysis of drugs in urine or saliva at the laboratory must be conducted using appropriate high quality scientific techniques. This generally involves an initial immunoassay screening test followed by a confirmation analysis using mass-spectrometry. This not only confirms the exact identity of any drug present, but also indicates how much is present. QUALITY STANDARDS

18. Any drug testing laboratory used by a police force, or nominated by an officer for the independent testing of a sample, must be specifically accredited for drug-testing work through appropriate national standards (UKAS and BSI).

19. Any drug testing company used by a police force must satisfy the minimum chain of custody requirements set out above.

Overview of Alcohol Testing Procedures

20. Impairment of judgement increases with increasing blood alcohol concentration. Different people can demonstrate very different degrees of impairment with comparable concentrations of alcohol in their bodies. Experimental studies have shown that for most people some degree of impairment can be measured at a blood alcohol concentration of 40 to 50 mg%, and for some individuals first impairment could be detected at a concentration as low as 30 mg%. At these levels, the individual may not be aware of any impairment, but it may nevertheless be present.

21. In line with these experimental observations, a workplace alcohol limit of 29 mg% in blood has been adopted in respect of safety critical areas, where any risk of impairment is unacceptable.

22. An alcohol limit of 29 mg% in blood does not preclude moderate drinking, for example during the evening before a period of duty that commences the following morning. The relationship between alcohol consumption and blood alcohol concentration will depend on many variables, such as the pattern of consumption, the type of beverage consumed, and the individual’s body mass, metabolism and gender. Nevertheless, as with guidance given in relation to the 80 mg% blood alcohol limit for driving, broad indications can be provided to help individuals avoid situations in which they might exceed a workplace alcohol limit.

23. An average 70 kg male consuming 2 units of alcohol (e.g. one pint of moderate strength beer, 3.5% v/v) could achieve a theoretical maximum blood alcohol concentration of 30 mg%. (The actual concentration is likely to be lower, as the alcohol is not absorbed instantaneously.) The body eliminates alcohol at about the rate of 15 mg% per hour, thus an average person might expect a blood alcohol concentration of 30 mg% to fall to zero over a period of approximately 2 hours. It must be emphasised that these figures are only illustrations and provide only broad indications of alcohol levels for an average individual.

back to top